Effective government cannot occur without open communication, where staff feel safe to speak their mind in a professional setting. A recent firing of an agricultural marketing specialist because he expressed his opinions has put the U.S. Department of Agriculture under scrutiny, especially in light of the Obama administration's stated commitment to policies that encourage "free and open inquiry" among scientists and technical experts.

With 20 years of organic farming experience under his belt, Mark D. Keating commented on the National Organic Standards Board's (NOSB) recommendations concerning Animal Welfare, and was soon after terminated from the USDA's National Organic Program for doing so.

Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility (PEER), a non-profit group (and sister organization of GAP) that assists local, state and federal public employees, is calling for Keating to be reinstated, making the argument that he was not in contradiction with official policy but rather aiding an advisory panel in forming policy. In a letter to the agency, PEER senior counsel Paula Dinerstein writes:

The instruction which Mr. Keating was fired for violating is additionally troubling because it is ambiguous and internally inconsistent. It directs NOP staff to “serve as technical experts, provide advice, perhaps pose questions to the NOSB,” and yet not “interject personal opinions on issues, especially when no NOP position has been developed.” Where is one to draw the line between providing advice and posing questions as part of one’s job, and interjecting personal opinions where there is no official NOP position, which can result in losing one’s job? The only way to be sure of compliance is to remain silent.

The way things are set up for discussion ultimately make it impossible for honest dialogue at the NOP and for Keating to utilize his background experience for which he was hired. If your only options are to repeat the agency's stance or to keep quiet, what does that mean for the overall work environment?

AlterNet reports:

In an interview, Mr. Keating said the official reasons given for his termination were a "complete fabrication." He added, "I was the guy who knew too much."

Keating says he doesn't have any evidence to back the notion that corporate interests were at play, but he did admit that criticism of giant agribusiness "by sustainable farming advocates has led to 'hurt feelings' in the industry."

The article also highlights the recent survey released by GAP partner Union of Concerned Scientists that shows USDA scientists and inspectors' concern that their work in food safety is hindered by "political interference." Keating's experience appears to fall in place as part of an agency trend. Rather than feeling pressured by a political agenda, government employees should feel protected enough to do their job to the best of their ability.

Sarah Damian is Social and New Media Fellow for the Government Accountability Project, the nation's leading whistleblower advocacy organization.

Photo via wikimedia user David Shankbone

The plaintiff, a Maryland-based unit of the French food service giant Sodexo, accuses the United Egg Producers trade group and leading egg farmers of conspiring to limit supply in order to increase demand.

For many consumers, when it comes to thinking about how food reaches their plates, their thought process leads to "I just don't want to know." Staying in the dark allows them to eat cheap, processed food from large grocery or restaurant chains without feeling any guilt over the questionable practices that lead to such affordable prices. In today's economy, who can blame them? But it's getting to the point where this ignorance about the food industry affects a lot more than your dollars.

This past Tuesday, the FDA announced that the Iowa egg farm responsible for the summer's widespread Salmonella outbreak has cleaned up two of its barns and that these facilities may resume sending out shipments of shell eggs. However, "a company spokeswoman declined to say where the eggs would be sold." Even though these two barns can produce more than 800,000 eggs a week that will reach stores all over the country, shoppers who purchase them will be clueless that their eggs come from Iowa, let alone the same facility that caused them to reconsider which products they bought (if any) while outbreak headlines were dominating the news.

Whether or not the company has truly cleaned up its act, it's clear that those who dominate sectors of the industry - where thousands of livestock raised in a single facility are the norm - have a national impact on our food supply and public health. Consumers, therefore, have a right to know what they are eating and where it comes from.

A growing demographic of people who want to know more details on the source of their food is influencing corporate decisions. Particularly in the realm of animal welfare, many brands are phasing out practices their customers recognize as inhumane. Following a national movement to stop the use of cages to confine laying hens, Kraft Foods recently announced it would source one million eggs from cage-free hens in 2011. Food Manufacturing summarizes points from the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS) to explain what the change would imply:

• U.S. factory farms confine about 280 million hens in cages so small, they can't even spread their wings. Extensive scientific research confirms this causes suffering.
• Cage-free hens generally have two to three times more space per bird than caged hens. Cage-free hens may not be able to go outside and, like caged hens, may have parts of their beaks cut off, but they can walk, spread their wings and lay their eggs in nests—all behaviors permanently denied to hens crammed into cages.

Moving towards cage-free eggs looks to be a step up for factory farms, but it's hard to tell how much effort is being made or if it's just for show. Unless you're buying directly from a local farmer, consumers must rely on labels to know the history of their food, including how the animals were handled. But terms like "cage-free" are not strictly regulated, and it's easy for companies to market a practice they know consumers want without actually making substantial changes.

A lawsuit was filed this week that accuses Perdue Farms - the nation's third largest poultry producer - with falsely advertising its chicken as "humanely raised." A member of HSUS filed the suit "on behalf of consumers duped by Perdue Farms." The advocacy group details the trauma that chickens undergo at typical poultry slaughter operations, where they frequently experience stress and pain before they are killed. The Humane Methods of Slaughter Act, that requires rendering animals insensible to pain before slaughter, does not apply to poultry.

The Perdue lawsuit highlights the issue of large-scale producers' ability to exploit consumer demand for their profit. HSUS chief counsel Jonathan Lovvorn argues that "Perdue has simply slapped 'humanely raised' stickers on its factory farm products, hoping consumers won't know the difference."

It's evident that shoppers' preferences are facilitating change, but we must keep companies accountable for their claims and continue to promote transparency throughout our food system. Especially when factory farms have grown significantly bigger in the last decade (according to a new Food & Water Watch report), which squeezes more animals into small spaces, the push for truth and openness in food production is increasingly essential.

Sarah Damian is Social and New Media Fellow for the Government Accountability Project, the nation's leading whistleblower advocacy organization.

GAP mourns the passing of our client, Dr. Dean Wyatt, who succumbed to brain cancer on November 11, 2010 at the age of 59.

Dr. Wyatt came to GAP roughly three years ago for legal assistance. During the course of our representation, we came to know Dr. Wyatt not only as a client but also as a friend. It was truly our honor and privilege to work with a man of such tremendous courage, conviction, and commitment to the truth.

As a USDA Public Health Veterinarian, Dr. Wyatt blew the whistle on inhumane handling at two slaughterhouses, which led to criminal prosecutions. Dr. Wyatt initially suffered intense retaliation for speaking out on these incidents of misconduct. However, after he risked his career by refusing to remain silent, NGOs, Congress, and even the USDA itself came to view Dr. Wyatt’s insight as essential for identifying and resolving issues of humane handling, food safety, and whistleblower protection. By the time of his death, Dr. Wyatt had made the transition from marginalized whistleblower to respected expert.

Dr. Wyatt was a gracious and selfless individual who, like so many whistleblowers, had an unwavering commitment to doing the right and just thing. He firmly believed that it was his duty as a public servant to enforce humane slaughter laws and that his role as a Public Health Veterinarian demanded that he work to reduce the needless suffering of food animals. GAP was honored to assist him in his efforts to do so.

Albert Schweitzer reminded us to “think occasionally of the suffering of which you spare yourself the sight.” Dr. Wyatt challenged Congress and USDA officials to do just that when he spoke out before a House Subcommittee on inadequate enforcement of humane handling laws. In his testimony, he implored Congress to stop overlooking humane handling and the field inspectors, like him, who are ignored when they report it. At the hearing, graphic video of unchecked egregious animal abuse taken by an undercover Humane Society investigator was shown that substantiated Dr. Wyatt’s claims.

Not only a stalwart defender of humane handling practices, Dr. Wyatt took a stand for food safety. He worked with GAP along with other food safety organizations to bring attention to food safety inspection issues as well as inadequate testing protocols for foodborne pathogens. His disclosures regarding food safety have been cited by multiple media outlets and used as advocacy tools to advance food safety legislation and reforms. A courageous whistleblower and friend, Dr. Wyatt never stopped fighting for greater transparency and accountability within the system.

In our work, we are honored to work with individuals who sacrifice their own interests for the health and safety of others. Dr. Wyatt was such an individual. Humble and gracious, Dr. Wyatt never hesitated to thank GAP for its assistance. But indeed, it was our pleasure and gift to be of counsel.

GAP extends its sincerest condolences to his family and friends.

Advocates in all areas of the food and agriculture sectors kept a close eye on mid-term elections and how they will impact our country's food integrity.

In terms of the focus on food safety within Congress, to begin with, the takeover of Republicans in the House may lessen the frequency of investigative hearings for outbreaks and other industry problems, according to Food Safety News:

One year ago this Saturday, USDA public health veterinarian and whistleblower Dr. Dean Wyatt was vindicated for slaughterhouse humane handling complaints he had brought up repeatedly since 2007, but were ignored by his superiors. That was the day that the Humane Society of the United States released undercover footage of horrific animal abuses (including excessive electrical prodding and skinning a calf alive) at the Bushway Packing slaughterhouse in Vermont. Dr. Wyatt also exposed similar atrocities at a plant in Oklahoma. You can read about his story in full here.

How timely that in the same week as the one-year anniversary of the plant violations' exposure, the owner of Bushway Packing has pleaded nolo contendere in the case charging him of animal cruelty, a direct result of the video and consequent USDA investigation. Frank Perretta entered the plea Wednesday in Vermont, which officially does not admit or dispute the charges against him, but has the same consequences as a guilty plea.

The Vermont Attorney General press release states:

Perretta will receive a suspended sentence of zero to one year, pay a fine of $2,000 and will complete 120 hours of community service, not involving work with animals. In addition, the court entered an order that Perretta forfeit any future right to participate in any animal husbandry or slaughterhouse activity.

This is good news, especially for Dr. Wyatt, who faced hostility rather than praise for his efforts to enforce food integrity. And not just at the Vermont plant, which was forced to shut down but has since reopened under new ownership.

Earlier this year, GAP helped Dr. Wyatt prepare and deliver testimony in front of Congress regarding the violations he witnessed at Bushway Packing, as well as at the Oklahoma slaughterhouse which “appealed Wyatt’s citations.” Dr. Wyatt described the lack of support he received from USDA supervisors and made recommendations to the agency for reforming its approach to humane handling.

We can only be so lucky to have more brave whistleblowers like Dr. Wyatt, who pushed on year after year even when everyone seemed against him. GAP continues to support efforts like his to hold the government accountable for monitoring our food supply.

Sarah Damian is Social and New Media Fellow for the Government Accountability Project, the nation's leading whistleblower advocacy organization.

Can you have a happy chicken and eat it too? Well, two chicken producers believe it's possible via "controlled atmosphere stunning," – putting the chickens to sleep in a room slowly gassed with carbon dioxide. This way, the chickens don't struggle with the handlers out of fear when they are hung upside down to have their throats slit, easing the slaughter process for both the workers and the hens.

The producers – Bell & Evans in Pennsylvania and Mary's Chickens in California – see this alternative to conventional slaughter methods as a means to satisfy a growing consumer demand for humane treatment of livestock. However, that doesn't necessarily mean anyone wants to know all the details.

The market has no standard 'stress-free' label, trapping producers in a catch-22 as they figure out how to market humane killing while not disturbing the consumers with the image. Regarding the toil over terminology, the NYT reports:

Anglia Autoflow, the company that is building the knock-out systems for the two processors, calls the process “controlled atmosphere stunning,” but Mr. Pitman said his company was considering the phrase “sedation stunning” for use on its packages. Also on the short-list: “humanely slaughtered,” “humanely processed” or “humanely handled.”

Scott Sechler, owner of Bell & Evans, compared the process to undergoing anesthesia before surgery and wants to use the words "slow induction anesthesia" to promote his birds. Whatever label they decide on, it only refers to the conditions of how they were killed, not necessarily how they were raised – that would involve another long list of possible labels and what they actually mean.

This is a good step forward in producers considering the welfare of animals, but reinforces the lack of regulation when it comes to advertising the production behind the product.